The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Then why did you go? Seriously-did you honestly expect anything other than you got? If not then I don't get the anger, frustration and overal disappointment. I'm not saying this is a great film, and I'm sure other directors could have produced a more faithful adaptation, and probably a better film for it. What I'm saying is that this film, with its troll snot, over extended action sequences, Azog, changes to character motivation, bunny sleds and all of that and more, is what PJ was inevitably going to do, because that's the kind of director he is, and that's the kind of film he makes. Anyone who saw the LotR films and expected anything else hasn't been paying attention.

Was it my expectation to see a Peter Jackson film? Why, yes, by God, I am sure it was! But which Peter Jackson? The one who directed The Fellowship of the Ring, a fairly faithful adaptation with only a few jarring inconsistencies (like Xenarwen raising the Bruinen), but with an excellent Balrog battle, a superb bit of acting by Ian Holm as Bilbo, Sean Bean as a believable Boromir, and all in all a satisfying experience? Or was it the excessive fan-fictional PJ gone totally off his nut as in The Two Towers with giant hyenas, Elves in Helm's Deep, Aragorn falling off a cliff and frenching his horse, the senility of Treebeard and the ignoblement of the character Faramir?

Seeing as The Hobbit follows a fairly linear track in regards to plot, not unlike FotR, I had a reasonable expectation that the linear quality of the story would be somewhat maintained; ergo, I had hoped to see more of the former than the latter. Unfortunately, Jackson has gone off the deep end far earlier in his version of Muddled-Earth. Bilbo, the alleged protagonist of the story, is virtually invisible for most of the movie (and he didn't even have to put on the One Ring!). Jackson's inveterate tinkering sunk to new lows.

So, I am an idiot to expect Jackson learned a thing or two since the LotR trilogy? That he had perhaps became more subtle and less over-the-top? That he actually had the ability to grow as a director? Who knew he would become more inane, regressing to the days when he made silly horror movies?

Well, you can bloody well bet I won't make that mistake again. Jackson has sold his soul to the Hollywood machine, dragging his amusement park ride to torturous lengths in a three-film barrage of chases and made-for-3D spear-chucking, when he could have actually made a tight, endearing and emotionally satisfying adaptation in two movies without the wretched excess, the uninterrupted and exploitative violence (Bilbo killed how many goblins in the movie? Aside from throwing stones at some spiders, did he even wound anyone in the book?), and the completely nonsensical plot-points he pulled out of his barm-pot. Three 3 hour movies? Nine hours could be whittled to five or six without the lunacy.

I find it more troubling that you went to a Peter Jackson movie not just fully expecting Peter Jackson farcical flummery, but enjoying the sophomoric blather and then defending it like it was the Second Coming. I may be an idiot, as you say, but that idiocy can be altered in future. Conversely, a lobotomy is forever.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Yes, I thought it was very unfair, especially when the thread was opened as a flame one. to round on someone for offering robust argument back

Oh yes, I specifically decided to open a flame thread. "Flame", in this case, denoting anything you disagree with: a negative review. Which is the same tack junior member Annatar decided to take. He made his "robust" comments, and I rebutted him in the same "robust" manner. But as Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."